The Strategic Planning Process

In his State of the University Address in 1993, President Tompkins stated that our “planning process should foster educational purposefulness.” Accomplishing our vision requires the articulation of a strategic plan to guide decision making and against which to measure our progress. Long-range planning set targets for accomplishing the vision, but implementation required strategic goals.

A three-year process led in 1994 to the development of a new strategic plan in 1994 (see Figure 5), which had eight strategic goals and related short-term objectives (see Figure 6).

FIGURE 5. Flow Chart of the Strategic-Planning Process.

FIGURE 6. Structure of the MTU Strategic Plan.

The President’s top three expectations for the University—a student-enriching organization, a model of research and teaching excellence, and a financially strong university—are consistent with Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. These expectations and goals are all appropriate to an institution of higher education and provide a broad framework within which all units can chart a future which contributes to the whole. Previous planning initiatives targeted specific programs or “spheres of excellence” with which the entire university community could not always identify.

The eight strategic goals create a framework for planning at all levels of the University. The annual strategic planning process, and the budget that results from it, is thus aimed toward contributing to the longer-range goals, objectives, and vision of the University. By pushing the strategic planning process down to the departmental level, the plan provides a process and context for prioritizing budget initiatives, a mechanism for evaluating progress, and a vehicle for enhancing communication within the University community (Concern 8 cited in Chapter 1). The first round of planning under the new set of goals occurred in 1994. In the Fall, the Executive Vice-President and Provost held meetings with academic and administrative units with regard to the new strategic planning process and requested that each unit develop strategic initiatives in support of the Strategic Plan by December 1994. These strategic initiatives had to represent new or expanded initiatives which would move the University toward achieving its eight goals, be specific enough to be measurable, and be achievable by the unit proposing them. The units’ strategic initiatives were assembled, reviewed, and prioritized and became the basis for the development of the 1995/96 budget as well as a five-year budget in January 1995.

The first draft of the budget and the list of funded strategic initiatives were presented to various groups on campus for comment in early 1995: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs; the University Senate; Staff Council; the Board of Control; and an open meeting called “Tech Tea Time.” A final budget was prepared and presented to the Board of Control in May 1995. This process has been repeated annually in 1995/96 and 1996/97. To address some concerns that faculty and staff were not sufficiently involved in the strategic planning process, the Provost and the Director of Budget, Planning & Faculty Personnel began meeting with units in 1995/96 to discuss unit progress against their strategic initiatives and to review the place of these initiatives within the University Strategic Plan and draft budget. In 1996/97, the Self-Study Process for NCA accreditation initiated an in-depth review by each unit (Departmental Self-Study) of its progress toward accomplishing University strategic goals. This process culminated in a review of the appropriateness and adequacy of the eight strategic goals.

In this way, the annual strategic planning process ties decision making at the unit level to the stated purposes of the University. The eight strategic goals also provide the framework for measuring University progress and guiding decision making by the Board of Control with regard to establishing tuition levels and budgets [see, for example, the Annual Progress Reports to the Board of Control, 4.3G and 4.3H].

One method for measuring University progress is benchmarking [http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/prov/bench.htm]. Benchmarking allows us to assess our performance compared to similar universities, which helps us identify internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats. We have chosen benchmark institutions from a range of Carnegie classifications and established benchmark measures for each strategic goal (e.g., student to faculty ratio for Goal 1 and average faculty salaries for Goal 2).

TABLE 5. Benchmark Institutions.

Category	School
Research I Universities	Carnegie Mellon Georgia Tech
Research II Universities	Lehigh Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Doctoral I Universities	University of Missouri - Rolla
Doctoral II Universities	Clarkson Colorado School of Mines Michigan Technological University
Masters I Universities	California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo

Benchmarking provides a vehicle for accountability to the Board of Control, accrediting agencies, the State legislature and other external constituencies such as parents, corporations, and alumni. Benchmark information is provided annually in progress reports to the Board of Control and in reports to the State of Michigan Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education [4.5].

NEXT